Munshi Singh vs Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms, Samba and Others

The Tehsildar Samba took congnizance of an application preferred by Mrs. Ram Piari. In this application she had pleaded that in her capacity

being daughter of Inder Singh son of Buti Singh, she is entitled to the inheritance of Inder Singh. The concerned Tehsildar obtained report from the

Naib Tehsildar. After the perusal of record it was found that the appellant had been allotted 13 kanals of land, but she was still required to be given

2 kanal and 17 marlas of land with a view to give that much share a direction was given to restore 2 kanals and 17 marlas of land to the petitioner.

This order was sought to be implemented in terms of Section 27 of the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976. This was objected to. The petitioner remained

unsuccessful upto the level of Special Tribunal. Now the present position has been preferred.

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that Section 27 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 would not be available to the petitioner.

For facility of reference this provision is quoted below :

Implementation of the provisions of the Act

(i) A Revenue Officer, may take or cause to be taken such steps and use or cause to be used such force as may in the opinion of such officer, be

necessary to implement the transfer of eviction from or delivery of possession of land under this Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any

other law for time being in force, (ii) Any person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land

a) the transfer or acquisition of which either by the act if parties or by the operation of law is invalid under the provisions of this Act or

b) to the use and occupation of which he is not entitled under any provision of this Act may be summarily evicted by a Revenue Officer.

iii) At any time after the commencement of this Act it shall be lawful for a Revenue Officer or authority to enter upon any land and make or cause

to be made any survey including measurements and do any other act which he considers necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act"".

After having heard learned counsel for the parties. I am of the opinion that requisite orders were rightly passed by the concerned Tehsildar on

the application preferred by Ram Piari. Provisions of Section 27(2) of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 would be attracted to the facts of this case.

Any transfer either by the act of parties or by the operation of law is required to be implemented under Section 27 of the 1976 Act. Therefore, the

view expressed by the concerned Tehsildar cannot be faulted. The order passed by Tehsildar was rightly upheld by the higher authorities.

This petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed.